Category Archives: philosopher-kings

The philosopher-kings of the EU don’t want any damned-fool population getting in the way

Dalrymple notes that those British legislators who agitated most vociferously for Brexit declined, when the time came, to carry out the policy. They left it to a woman, already well known for her political maladroitness.

Dalrymple early grasped that May’s appearance of negotiating with the EU was

shadow play. She never intended to produce the complete break that just over half the electorate—but not the political class—wanted.

The impasse, he says

will probably lead to Britain never leaving the union.

Most legislators are opposed to Britain leaving the EU without a deal,

and the Union, knowing this, has no reason to negotiate further.

Dalrymple writes that the European approach to democracy is as follows:

If the voters get the answer wrong, either ignore the verdict or make them vote again until they get the answer right.

Whether the British population will take it lying down

remains to be seen, but after three years of deliberately created political chaos, it is likely that Britons will simply shrug and get on with their lives.

It should have been obvious from the first that

the EU would never want an agreement that was anything other than disadvantageous to Britain—for if Britain did not suffer markedly by departure, it would be a disaster for the Union, already not exactly at the height of its own popularity. If nothing else, the Union has successfully united the vested interests of the European political class.

Dalrymple declares:

The philosopher-kings of the EU do not want any damned-fool population getting in the way of the implementation of their wisdom. The founders of the ‘European project’ over 60 years ago wanted to eliminate messy politics through neat, clean administration.


has been humiliated by the episode, but history has no end, and Yugoslavian-style wars of secession may yet occur.

The self-professed philosopher-kings

Dalrymple writes that while

a comity of nations, each pursuing its own interests, is not the answer to all man’s political problems or conflicts,

it is better than the alternative, that is to say

universalist or supranational doctrines that claim to offer a full and final settlement of mankind’s woes.

He points out that supranationalism

in practice necessitates the rule of self-proclaimed and (more likely than not) self-interested philosopher-kings who will have no sense of personal limitation and who will be infatuated with their own virtue.


Oxfam so loves the poor, writes Dalrymple,

that it is safe to predict that it will never abolish itself no matter how rich humanity becomes.

There is no market, he says,

in which there is no rigging, either formal or informal, but I suspect that Oxfam’s preferred solution to an inevitable degree of rigging is complete rigging by philosopher-kings such as themselves.

The bogus charity’s propaganda, Dalrymple points out,

is an incitement to envy, one of the seven deadly sins.


‘Invidia’, detail, The Seven Deadly Sins and the Four Last Things, c. 1450-1515, attr. Jheronimus Bosch